Re: Mandated Self-Archiving and the "Open Choice" Option (fwd)

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:09:47 -0400

In addition to the reason already given, there are other benefits to publishers:

1) generous OA will be the sign of an up-to-date first rate publisher,
and lack of it, the opposite. This will attract authors, even the ones
who do not yet understand the benefits of OA for themselves.
I expect to see advertisements: 100% OA, publish here.

2) undergraduates, no matter where they come from,
 will enter graduate school already familiar with the journal. They will
want to publish their own eventual articles with the journals they know.

2a) In particular, it is much easier to include an OA article in a course
pack or e-reserves, for there are no payments. This adds to
the students' awareness of the journal. This past term I used only OA
articles for my assigned readings. Those are the ones they'll remember.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
and formerly
Princeton University Library

----- Original Message -----
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Date: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:22 am
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Mandated Self-Archiving and the "Open Choice" Option (fwd)

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:57:45 -0400
> From: Peter Suber <>
> Subject: Re: Mandated Self-Archiving and the "Open Choice" Option
> > > Perhaps I should have prefaced the question with a recitation and
> > > recognition of the fact that while the purpose is not to help
> publishers> > -- nonetheless, what I'm asking is, are there any
> such benefits to
> > > be realized; have you formulated any indirect benefits that may be
> > > anticipated?
> >
> >I believe I replied to that:
> >
> > (2) benefits to publishers in the form of increased
> > visibility and impact for their journals, which can also draw more
> > subscribers and more authors.
> >
> >There has been reported evidence of both of these. (Perhaps others
> will>be able to cite the sources.)
> Here's one bit of evidence. When _Molecular Biology of the Cell_
> adoptedthe policy to provide OA to all its articles within two
> months of
> publication (a comparatively short embargo), it saw both its
> submissionsand its subscriptions increase. It's impact factor
> apparently rose as
> well. The editor's only explanation is the increased visibility of
> thejournal. Here's the interview in which she discusses it.
> The cause of this effect wasn't self-archiving, but it's clearly
> equivalentto self-archiving at a rate of 100% after a two month delay.
> Peter Suber
Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 22:10:04 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:23 GMT